Global Warming Scam - "The Debate's Over Folks."

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
This is basic critical thinking and what I've been echoing in this and the other threads where conspiracy theory thinking is rampant. If you don't have more information than the experts, you're just being arrogant if you think you can glance at the information and form a better hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the nightly news. It has to do with aggregate expert opinions. It is why the stock market and sports betting is difficult to beat and becomes more difficult to beat as the participants, technology and money increases.

I doubt you read the link, or if you did, you didn't absorb it.
I understood the link far better than you I'm afraid. It seems that you have been desperately searching for anything you think supports your view including this latest tripe for elite mind control of the electorate. Again science is not a popularity contest and it is far from apolitical. If you think so then you really should be on a different forum as much of what Ray believes runs counter to the scientific consensus, including his disbelief in AGW. Give a scientist enough money or perqs and they like any other human will say whatever you want. This is what you refuse to recognize.

You also refuse to deal with the facts, whether on climate change or any of the other issues, but rather continue to claim that anyone who disagrees with you must have flawed reasoning or some other various personal defect. I have news for you, there are far better informed experts on climate science than you and I, that think that man-made global warming is lie. You would be well advised to look into what they have to say and deal with the facts rather than looking for the answer in some random blog post by a third rate amateur philosopher.
 
Last edited:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
I understood the link far better than you I'm afraid. It seems that you have been desperately searching for anything you think supports your view including this latest tripe for elite mind control of the electorate. Again science is not a popularity contest and it is far from apolitical. If you think so then you really should be on a different forum as much of what Ray believes runs counter to the scientific consensus, including his disbelief in AGW. Give a scientist enough money or perqs and they like any other human will say whatever you want. This is what you refuse to recognize.

You also refuse to deal with the facts, whether on climate change or any of the other issues, but rather continue to claim that anyone who disagrees with you must have flawed reasoning or some other various personal defect. I have news for you, there are far better informed experts on climate science than you and I, that think that man-made global warming is lie. You would be well advised to look into what they have to say and deal with the facts rather than looking for the answer in some random blog post by a third rate amateur philosopher.

Anything that disagrees with you is just a political popularity contest (nevermind the post was by oxford philosophers and has nothing to do with global warming rather how to give weight to what we think we know) and I should leave the forum because I don't buy into all the group think that goes on around here. Yet you're such an independent thinker. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Anything that disagrees with you is just a political popularity contest (nevermind the post was by oxford philosophers and has nothing to do with global warming rather how to give weight to what we think we know) and I should leave the forum because I don't buy into all the group think that goes on around here. Yet you're such an independent thinker. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

As usual you completely ignore the issues put to you and reflexively resort to more personal attacks. I am not sure your Oxford friends would approve of such transparently hollow debating tactics.

edit: I just looked into the background of your fearless thought leader and the Effective Altruism forum. They are both creatures of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. If you knew anything about social engineering and Oxford's role in it, this name alone should have set off alarm bells.

Fortunately they don't bother to hide what they are up to; “Our mission is to shed light on crucial considerations that might shape our future,” which is a euphemism for social engineering. Like I said originally, this is nothing more than elite sponsored disinfo designed to get the people to stop thinking for themselves, and blindly submit to expert opinion. Ironically it is the anti-thesis of this forum. I am not suggesting that you leave the forum but was only wondering why you were here as it seems your belief system isn't very open to heterodoxy.
 
Last edited:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
As usual you completely ignore the issues put to you and reflexively resort to more personal attacks. I am not sure your Oxford friends would approve of such transparently hollow debating tactics.

edit: I just looked into the background of your fearless thought leader and the Effective Altruism forum. They are both creatures of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute. If you knew anything about social engineering and Oxford's role in it, this name alone should have set off alarm bells.

Fortunately they don't bother to hide what they are up to; “Our mission is to shed light on crucial considerations that might shape our future,” which is a euphemism for social engineering. Like I said originally, this is nothing more than elite sponsored disinfo designed to get the people to stop thinking for themselves, and blindly submit to expert opinion. Ironically it is the anti-thesis of this forum. I am not suggesting that you leave the forum but was only wondering why you were here as it seems your belief system isn't very open to heterodoxy.

lol what a typical hypocritcal respsonse from you. Whine that I'm completely ignoring some of the weak evidence you trump up while then slamming FHI in some sort of conspiratorial light instead of dealing with the arguments themselves. You're really something.

Anyway, that link is not for you. You enjoy your distorted worldview too much and the superiority it makes you feel to actually try to learn about critical thinking and how to weigh evidence. The link is for those who are interested in learning how to map the world as accurately as possible so they don't spend their time like you constantly steering into rocks.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
lol what a typical hypocritcal respsonse from you. Whine that I'm completely ignoring some of the weak evidence you trump up while then slamming FHI in some sort of conspiratorial light instead of dealing with the arguments themselves. You're really something.

Anyway, that link is not for you. You enjoy your distorted worldview too much and the superiority it makes you feel to actually try to learn about critical thinking and how to weigh evidence. The link is for those who are interested in learning how to map the world as accurately as possible so they don't spend their time like you constantly steering into rocks.
Does it make you feel superior to continually lob half-assed insults at perfect strangers? Sorry to disappoint but your words don’t bother me in the slightest. They do however speak volumes about you.

I’ll leave it to others to recognize who is the blind one steering into rocks.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I thought this was a place for people who valued the truth
I had hoped so too.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1- Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary it makes crops and forests grow faster.
Sure CO2 itself can as a direct effect a[make crops grow faster. That doesn't disprove it also having greenhouse gas effects.
2- Someday the world will wake up and laugh when they finally understand that the entire pursuit of economic ruin in the name of saving the planet from increasing carbon dioxide is in fact a terrible joke. You see it is an unarguable fact that the portion of the Earth’s greenhouse gas envelope contributed by man is barely one tenth of one per cent of the total. Do the numbers your self. CO2 is no more than 4% of the total (with water vapor being over 90% followed by methane and sulpher and nitrous oxides). Of that 4% man contributes only a little over 3%. Elementary school arithmetic says that 3% of 4% is .12% and for that we are sentencing the planet to a wealth of damaging economic impacts.
This is ridicule and scorn, not rational argument. CO2 is one of the GHGs, not the only one that scientists consider relevant. There is nothing in this paragraph to demonstrate that 0.12% is insignificant in the context.
3- The effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is limited because it only absorbs certain wave lengths of radiant energy. As the radiation in the particular wave length band is used up, the amount left for absorption by more of the gas is reduced. A simple analogy is to consider drawing a curtain across a window – a large part of the light will be shut out but some will still get through. Add a second curtain to the first and most of the remaining light will be excluded. A point will quickly be reached where adding more curtains has a negligible effect, because there is no light left to stop. This is the case with the absorption of energy as more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.
Nothing here to show that this general principle applies in this context.
5- 900,000 years of ice core temperature records and carbon dioxide content records show that CO2 increases follow rather than lead increases in Earth temperature which is logical because the oceans are the primary source of CO2 and they hold more CO2 when cool than when warm, so warming causes the oceans to release more CO2.
Positive feedback loops give reason for particular concern and caution.
6- While temperatures have fluctuated over the past 5000 years, today’s earth temperature is below average for the past 5000 years.
Sudden changes, as occurring and predicted to hasten, tend to be very disruptive to existing ecosystems.
7- A modest amount of global warming, should it occur would be beneficial to the natural world. The warmest period in recorded history was the Medieval Warm Period roughly 800 to 1200 AD when temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today allowing great prosperity for mankind, and Greenland was actually green.
Given the potential for positive feedback loops and tipping points, there is no grounds for confidence that the increase can be limited to modest amounts.
As above, sudden changes tend to be disruptive. There might be lots of growth (as long as large areas are not rendered desert or flood), but at the expense of many current species.
10- We know that 200 million years ago when the dinosaurs walked the Earth, average Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 1800 ppm, five times higher than today.
Um. Relevance? Are you thinking it would be good to replace current species with a completely different set?
12- NASA satellites measuring Earth atmosphere temperature found 2008 to be the coldest year since 2000 and the 14th coldest of the past 30 years. US climate Monitoring Stations on the surface show greater warmth, but pictures of most of the 1,221 US temperature stations show 90% to be located near human sources of heat (exhaust fans, air conditioning units, hot roof tops, asphalt parking lots and so forth). the conclusion is inescapable: The US land based temperature record is unreliable.
There is other evidence beyond US land-based temperature record. For instance, large areas of observed coral bleaching, caused by warming oceans and increased CO2 absorption into ocean waters.
13- While we hear much about one or another melting glaciers, a recent study of 246 glaciers around the world between 1946 and 1995 indicated a balance between those that are losing ice, gaining ice and remaining in equilibrium. There is no global trend in any direction.
There is a global trend of serious change. Glaciers that have been reliable sources of fresh water for multiple communities for centuries are under threat. Increases in glaciers somewhere else does not solve their problem. Changes in global weather patterns are disruptive to communities. More droughts + more floods might average out to the same total precipitation, but the practical effect is very different.
14- On May 1, 2007 National Geographic magazine reported that the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro were shrinking as a result of lower precipitation rather than a warming trend.
Changes in precipitation patterns are part of he predicted effects of global climate change.
18- Nobody believes a weather prediction 7 days ahead but now we are asked to reorder our economy based on climate predictions 100 years hence which are no longer supported by current evidence.
Weather and climate are different.

Most of these points are trivial barely-arguments aimed at confusing people, and as far as I can tell have nothing to do with countering the actual scientific evidence.

Yes we are interested in truth but consensus is not the same as truth. If we thought that consensus meant anything we would be on WebMD for our health advice. I am puzzled as to how you can be on this forum and think that posting opinion polls on science would get you anywhere.
I think Peat considered much of the 'science' done in the medical field to be of a 'special' kind, not much like the real science done in other fields - there's an article where he refers to a study based on surveying a bunch of doctors for their opinion about reasonable treatment, with no actual observation of effects of the treatment on actual patients/subjects.
Fortunately they don't bother to hide what they are up to; “Our mission is to shed light on crucial considerations that might shape our future,” which is a euphemism for social engineering.
I'm puzzled that people who express skepticism about the majority expert opinion apply so little skepticism to the deniers.
And so little concern about the possibility of social engineering by GHG profiteers and their allies.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
The science of the "deniers" is superior, if anyone cares to read it, to the science touted by the proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming.

Very soon now we will enter an undeniable cooling phase, although the models will continue to be tweaked as they already are to obfuscate this fact for as long as possible.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
This shouldn't be so polarized. I'm fairly certain that any change in CO₂/O₂ ratio will increase the absorption of infrared radiation. The only question, it appears, is exactly how much temperature change would be expected.

And this is very difficult to confidently model, as far as I can tell. We can all make our own models and we'll probably get different numbers, even if we all approach them in a non‐biased fashion.

Even Rancourt predicts a modest change, a person who appears to be considered a 'denier' by some. So he is obviously not denying the effect, but only the magnitude of the effect—seemingly exaggerated by some organizations for political reasons.

And @x-ray peat has pointed out that solar activity actually changes the mean global temperature by ionizing atmospheric gasses with α-particles, known to generate ¹⁴CO₂ but also seeding clouds: Atmospheric H₂O is attracted to ionized species since they carry an electrical charge; the subsequent clouds produced reflect solar radiation. This may seem to be a stretch, or perhaps seem insignificant, but that's probably only because you haven't seen the correlations. For this reason, I think any temperature model that does not include solar flux, in this manner, should be considered incomplete.
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I'm puzzled that people who express skepticism about the majority expert opinion apply so little skepticism to the deniers.
And so little concern about the possibility of social engineering by GHG profiteers and their allies.
We already have. Most of us who are expressing the dissenting view on AGW have done an open and honest review of the science on both sides, and have come to the conclusion that the Global Warming end of the world hype just isn't supported by the facts. As @kyle said above the science on the side of the skeptics is just more persuasive than the science on the side of the alarmists.

I am curious as to what reason you think explains why Ray is also an AGW skeptic. Is he also incapable of applying skepticism to the "deniers"? Maybe Ray looked at all the available facts and came to an independent conclusion based on the science just like we did.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Haha, which is funny because most of the country pees and poops in perfectly clean water. When California had a water shortage, were people still doing this?

You jusy blew my mind. My poop gets cleaner water than the people in flint, michigan. Hell my poop gets cleaner water than the majority of the human population.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
The science of the "deniers" is superior, if anyone cares to read it, to the science touted by the proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming.

Very soon now we will enter an undeniable cooling phase, although the models will continue to be tweaked as they already are to obfuscate this fact for as long as possible.

Have you taken the ice age pill? If so are you prepping?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Have you taken the ice age pill? If so are you prepping?

A drop in temperature like The Little Ice Age wouldn't be so extreme as all that imo. But I believe the sun cycles theory (which predicts cooling) is more tenable than king CO2.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
This shouldn't be so polarized. I'm fairly certain that any change in CO₂/O₂ ratio will increase the absorption of infrared radiation. The only question, it appears, is exactly how much temperature change would be expected.

And this is very difficult to confidently model, as far as I can tell. We can all make our own models and we'll probably get different numbers, even if we all approach them in a non‐biased fashion.
I agree that there is large uncertainty about exactly how far the warming might go, as I think all/most of the scientists in the field do.

the subsequent clouds produced reflect solar radiation. This may seem to be a stretch, or perhaps seem insignificant,
Not insignificant at all, and I believe it is included in at least some of the models.

The precautionary principle would suggest that certainty about the exact magnitude of the warming is not needed to treat the issue as serious enough to avoid exacerbating unnecessarily. Especially given that the models include some likely positive feedback mechanisms as well as the negative feedback you mention.

The evidence is not only in the models, but in the already occurring observable and observed events and trends. Climate change has and is already occurring at a rate faster than predicted by most of the previous models. Environments and people are already significantly affected.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I am curious as to what reason you think explains why Ray is also an AGW skeptic. Is he also incapable of applying skepticism to the "deniers"? Maybe Ray looked at all the available facts and came to an independent conclusion based on the science just like we did.
I don't remember the detail of the last quote I saw here from Peat on the subject, but IIRC, he suggested skepticism about the motives of hte nuclear industry in the debate, which I agree about, made the point that there are a number of other factors than just CO2 potentially affecting climate warming, such as thawing methane etc. Which I agree with. He's also previously made points along the lines that CO2 is not poisonous in the expected atmospheric proportions to terrestrial animals or plants, which also makes sense to me.
Perhaps he has been skeptical of some specific claims?
I consider him knowledgable in his field. I don't know how much he has investigated this area.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I don't remember the detail of the last quote I saw here from Peat on the subject, but IIRC, he suggested skepticism about the motives of hte nuclear industry in the debate, which I agree about, made the point that there are a number of other factors than just CO2 potentially affecting climate warming, such as thawing methane etc. Which I agree with. He's also previously made points along the lines that CO2 is not poisonous in the expected atmospheric proportions to terrestrial animals or plants, which also makes sense to me.
Perhaps he has been skeptical of some specific claims?
I consider him knowledgable in his field. I don't know how much he has investigated this area.
No he is a full fledged skeptic and believes all of the warming of the last century can be explained by changes in solar output. I have never heard him opine on something that he hasnt fully researched for himself and he has often said he doesnt know about something if he really doesnt.

 

Tenacity

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
844
No he is a full fledged skeptic and believes all of the warming of the last century can be explained by changes in solar output. I have never heard him opine on something that he hasnt fully researched for himself and he has often said he doesnt know about something if he really doesnt.



I think he mentioned other factors influencing climate as well, like deforestation. He writes about that in Generative Energy.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
... and believes all of the warming of the last century can be explained by changes in solar output.
That's not what I've read. Looks like an oversimplified interpretation to me.

I think he mentioned other factors influencing climate as well, like deforestation.
Yes, deforestation too.

I have never heard him opine on something that he hasnt fully researched for himself and he has often said he doesnt know about something if he really doesnt.
I've frequently seen him opine in very careful and precise ways on things he knows about, and then seen others extrapolate way beyond what Peat himself has said.
 

dbh25

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
653
The evidence is not only in the models, but in the already occurring observable and observed events and trends. Climate change has and is already occurring at a rate faster than predicted by most of the previous models
?
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I think he mentioned other factors influencing climate as well, like deforestation. He writes about that in Generative Energy.
That's true but I think he was speaking more about local climate effects where deforestation leads to a drier climate. Phoenix actually experienced the opposite effect as all the golf courses have made the climate less desert like.

Overall the globe has been greening and is being reforested, thanks to CO2, so the effect of deforestation has become less and less.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom